Comments for “A Law Unto Themselves”: Jury Nullification and the Deck Stacked Against It at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.rcreader.com Fri, 24 May 2013 12:23:23 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/news/jury-nullification-feature/#comment-3042 The comments of Marcus Hale resonate with me, as does the principle of jury nullification itself. If there is a better bloodless tool of revolution or restorative power, I can't name it. Too often, laws created by elected legislators are not penned with the people in mind, other than to further limit or impoverish them. Too often, such laws are not penned by legislators themselves, but rather by special interests and corporations. Too often, juries are instructed in the choreography of dancing around conscience, common sense, and plainly understood decency, in order to further confuse them regarding their roles as sovereign citizens directing their government. Too often, that same government directs its constituents to trust it, as it acts untrustworthy, and to further empower it, as it has acted consistently to increase its power beyond its lawful boundaries. Jury nullification is the voice, the will, and the conscience of the people. I can only say of those who decry it that they should perhaps consider citizenry elsewhere. If one fears empowered Americans, then another might question the source of that fear. - Chris Hartsock Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:52:15 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/news/jury-nullification-feature/#comment-2938 With regard to the three posted arguments against jury nullification. These are reposts. 1) Laws should be judged on a case by case basis. This is the only fair way to observe whether or not a law, no matter how wisely constructed or by whom, is working in favor of the people or not. 2) This is really luck of the draw and depends to some extent on the wisdom and experience of the jurors. Once again it is better that a law is tested at all rather than not at all. At least if there is a repetitious rejection of a law, a pattern can be established regarding the law's efficacy or appropriateness. This also begs the case for people to be better informed for their own good and the need for juror education starting in schools. 3) This is a spectacularly subjective and generalized observation and surprising that it has come from a supposedly august body of learned people. It takes no consideration of the masses of statistical evidence, which suggests there is something wrong with the "system". This is surely a joke. This purports the system to be beyond reproach and more important than the individuals that make it up or vote it in. The assumption is ridiculous, treasonous in its nature and at odds with our basic rights. It is a big brother comment of the worst order and very revealing. I am neither an academic, nor a politician, a legislator nor a legal beagle, however, like your average punter/ juror, can easily see where justice is being applied in respect to laws and where it is not. - Marcus Hale Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:30:09 +0100